[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Horner's Pachy Lumpin' - Your Thoughts?
--- On Sat, 1/9/10, Michael Erickson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> From: Michael Erickson <email@example.com>
> Subject: RE: Horner's Pachy Lumpin' - Your Thoughts?
> To: "Dino List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Received: Saturday, January 9, 2010, 9:03 AM
> That skull is not real. It is heavily reconstructed - it
> bears almost no resemblance to the few complete
> (unfortunately undescribed) _Stygimoloch_ skulls that are
> known. And if you take a look at this Wikipedia article:
Sorry Michael but the important parts of that skull, i.e the squamosals
perietals, frontals, dome, spikes, etc are all real. Only the face and snout
are reconstructed. It happens to be a Triebold reconstruction based on a
privately owned specimen represented by the cast seen here:
I find it most interesting that you are so quick to make ad hominem attacks
against Horner and Goodwin, where its only actual flaw is that it sinks a nomen
Bakker, when just a few weeks ago you were lambasting everyone for rightfully
dismissing the steaming pile of crap that is Gong et al 2009.
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your
favourite sites. Download it now